• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ladies and gentleman...the worst human ever

Wakeforest22890 said:
Hey you do you.

Just out of curiosity how many times have you had female employees quit while pregnant after taking their leave? It sounds like it's happened a whole lot to you.
Click to expand...

We're 5 for 5 on those who did not come back at the end of the leave. Not one has come back.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yeah, we'll usually get about 50-80 resumes per available position, so to me it is just another criteria to easily get it down to a manageable number.
But honest question for you - where does the line exist between experience and #anecdotes? And how many times are you supposed to put up with the same bad result arising from the exact situation while thinking that "they are not likely to continue to occur" because KenPom says so? You can call it "perception bias" and "selective perception" or whatever other buzz word from an article you want to use to make it look like there is a black and white answer that is clearly apparent from a 30,000-foot view, but there is also a reason why experience in business is valued. Everyone on here loves to say that insanity is doing the same act and expecting different results, so at what point does trusting some nebulous stats become insane? Or is it okay to be insane so long as you are PC?
Click to expand...

Why don't you just put "people with the potential to make babies need not apply" in your job postings and save yourself some time?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
What is your overall retention rate? Sounds like your employees don't like working for you.
Click to expand...

Less than 10% have quit for non-baby reasons. We've fired a lot more than that. But, of course, it is easier to blame the employer than face the reality that the world is not always as PC as everyone would like.
It's not like the problem is hard to figure out ... when you factor the cost of daycare, it isn't worth it economically for the mother to work for the going industry rate for the position. I get it, and I don't blame them for making that calculation. I don't need a University study to teach me how to multiply and subtract. But yet knowing that fact and using it in a hiring decision is somehow discriminatory.
 
I'm actually curious as to what it is you do - are your employees career-minded, breadwinner folks? or are they more administrative?
 
Depends on the position, but the ones who haven't come back have been admin/techs. None had above a high school diploma.
ETA: I think one had a 2-year degree from CPCC.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Less than 10% have quit for non-baby reasons. We've fired a lot more than that. But, of course, it is easier to blame the employer than face the reality that the world is not always as PC as everyone would like.
It's not like the problem is hard to figure out ... when you factor the cost of daycare, it isn't worth it economically for the mother to work for the going industry rate for the position. I get it, and I don't blame them for making that calculation. I don't need a University study to teach me how to multiply and subtract. But yet knowing that fact and using it in a hiring decision is somehow discriminatory.
Click to expand...

It is, by definition, discriminatory to not hire somebody because of their potential for pregnancy. It is solely women who can get pregnant as well so not only is it discriminatory on the basis of being prejudicial to people who might get pregnant, it's also prejudicial against women in general between the ages of 20 up to about 40 years old. If you had over 15 employees you would have the shit sued out of you and rightfully so. Hell I'd be one of the first ones lined up to show this thread if there were a lawsuit.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Depends on the position, but the ones who haven't come back have been admin/techs. None had above a high school diploma.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised, but I would think high attrition is in the nature of that position.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It is, by definition, discriminatory to not hire somebody because of their potential for pregnancy. It is solely women who can get pregnant as well so not only is it discriminatory on the basis of being prejudicial to people who might get pregnant, it's also prejudicial against women in general between the ages of 20 up to about 40 years old. If you had over 15 employees you would have the shit sued out of you and rightfully so. Hell I'd be one of the first ones lined up to show this thread if there were a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Funny on a lot of levels.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Less than 10% have quit for non-baby reasons. We've fired a lot more than that. But, of course, it is easier to blame the employer than face the reality that the world is not always as PC as everyone would like.
It's not like the problem is hard to figure out ... when you factor the cost of daycare, it isn't worth it economically for the mother to work for the going industry rate for the position. I get it, and I don't blame them for making that calculation. I don't need a University study to teach me how to multiply and subtract. But yet knowing that fact and using it in a hiring decision is somehow discriminatory.
Click to expand...

So it looks like you should consider paying them more if you want to keep them or providing some type of child care option. Is it more efficient to pay them more or train somebody else?
 
If the employees are fungible to a certain degree (which they usually are in this case), then it is more efficient to hire someone with a lower chance of leaving. I'm not going to pay above-market just so I can say I have an employee who has a kid, I would pay market for someone who I think is going to stick around. If I'm paying more to someone just because they can get pregant, then I would be discriminating against women who are not likely get pregnant, right? I'm sure then someone would accuse me of age discrimination or discrimination against uglies.
 
PhDeac said:
So it looks like you should consider paying them more if you want to keep them or providing some type of child care option. Is it more efficient to pay them more or train somebody else?
Click to expand...

Obviously, it's more efficient to discriminate, and a lot of businesses would make that choice if it were allowed by law. Which is why our society has determined, through the democratic process, that the practice of discriminating against women based on perceived family status should be outlawed for businesses with over 15 employees, because it is in the best interest of our society as a whole to integrate the over 50% of the population that has a uterus into the workforce.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
If the employees are fungible to a certain degree (which they usually are in this case), then it is more efficient to hire someone with a lower chance of leaving. I'm not going to pay above-market just so I can say I have an employee who has a kid, I would pay market for someone who I think is going to stick around. If I'm paying more to someone just because they can get pregant, then I would be discriminating against women who are not likely get pregnant, right? I'm sure then someone would accuse me of age discrimination or discrimination against uglies.
Click to expand...

You realize his point isn't that you should pay more so you can keep pregnant people, it's to pay more so that you can retain good employees and not be forced to bear the costs of going through the transactional costs of hiring a new employee, right? Obviously if it was worth it for them to stay then they would. As is, it's a lose-lose: they lose because it's not worth it to stay at a job that doesn't pay enough to get them child care (or so we theorize) while you lose because you have to suffer the time and financial burden of replacing employees instead of just paying them more to stay.

And to piggyback off of 923, of course it's easier to just do what you do: discriminate. That's the whole reason we have laws preventing it, because it provides an efficient breach for the employer while wholly shifting the burden onto the shoulders of (in this case) women who may potentially get pregnant.

Bottomline is that regardless of the legality of the situation, which we all agree in your situation is not illegal SOLELY because you are a small employer, it's a despicable business practice and just shows that you value some extra bucks in your pocket over any sense of morality, empathy, or social compassion for fellow humankind.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You realize his point isn't that you should pay more so you can keep pregnant people, it's to pay more so that you can retain good employees and not be forced to bear the costs of going through the transactional costs of hiring a new employee, right? Obviously if it was worth it for them to stay then they would. As is, it's a lose-lose: they lose because it's not worth it to stay at a job that doesn't pay enough to get them child care (or so we theorize) while you lose because you have to suffer the time and financial burden of replacing employees instead of just paying them more to stay.

And to piggyback off of 923, of course it's easier to just do what you do: discriminate. That's the whole reason we have laws preventing it, because it provides an efficient breach for the employer while wholly shifting the burden onto the shoulders of (in this case) women who may potentially get pregnant.

Bottomline is that regardless of the legality of the situation, which we all agree in your situation is not illegal SOLELY because you are a small employer, it's a despicable business practice and just shows that you value some extra bucks in your pocket over any sense of morality, empathy, or social compassion for fellow humankind.
Click to expand...

reps on reps on reps
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You realize his point isn't that you should pay more so you can keep pregnant people, it's to pay more so that you can retain good employees and not be forced to bear the costs of going through the transactional costs of hiring a new employee, right? Obviously if it was worth it for them to stay then they would. As is, it's a lose-lose: they lose because it's not worth it to stay at a job that doesn't pay enough to get them child care (or so we theorize) while you lose because you have to suffer the time and financial burden of replacing employees instead of just paying them more to stay.

And to piggyback off of 923, of course it's easier to just do what you do: discriminate. That's the whole reason we have laws preventing it, because it provides an efficient breach for the employer while wholly shifting the burden onto the shoulders of (in this case) women who may potentially get pregnant.

Bottomline is that regardless of the legality of the situation, which we all agree in your situation is not illegal SOLELY because you are a small employer, it's a despicable business practice and just shows that you value some extra bucks in your pocket over any sense of morality, empathy, or social compassion for fellow humankind.
Click to expand...

You are correct it is despicable.

But everyone is missing a big point. He's paying the going rate or so (which is likely a low number). Maybe his office isn't a great place to work. Maybe they can find better jobs.
 
RJKarl said:
You are correct it is despicable.

But everyone is missing a big point. He's paying the going rate or so (which is likely a low number). Maybe his office isn't a great place to work. Maybe they can find better jobs.
Click to expand...

Lots of us have said this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top